Should there be a limit - of up to 90 days - on the time asylum seekers spend in detention?

Apr 3, 2012

Scott Morrison and Sarah Hanson-Young debate the issue.

Scott Morrison, opposition spokesman on immigration and MP for Cook

The riots on Christmas Island and Villawood were the product of overcrowding caused by the surge in boat arrivals, an increase in the length of detention and an increase in the number of detainees whose claims had been rejected.

The parliamentary inquiry established by the Coalition into these violent riots that caused almost $18 million in damage made some practical suggestions. The Coalition supported 16 of the 31 recommendations made.

Processing people expeditiously is common sense. However, when more than 12,000 people turn up on 231 boats and the detention population that arrived by boat increases to more than 6500, the system collapses.

You cannot run a mandatory detention program without a strong border protection regime. Labor broke this nexus. The result has been chaos, cost and tragedy.

With strong border policies, a 90-day processing target is achievable. However, processing must always be subject to the complexity of the cases, especially where security is concerned. A blanket mandate on processing times denies such flexibility, establishes expectations and entitlements that can create pull factors, increases system complexity and establishes additional avenues for appeal.

The Coalition's combination of strong border measures with mandatory detention resulted in just four people in detention*, who had arrived by boat. Our policies also provided for people to be released into the community where they were deemed vulnerable. This remains our position.

Improvements can be made to how detention operates, but ignoring strong border policies will crash any system you try to run.

*Editor's note: The four people in detention refers to when the Coalition left office.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens immigration spokeswoman

The problems in our detention centres, such as overcrowding, tensions and people harming themselves, stem from indefinite detention. Time limits would solve all of that.

More than 86 per cent of asylum seekers have various levels of mental illness. We can fix that number with time limits.

The idea of indefinite detention is ludicrous, expensive and serves no purpose other than to punish those who arrived in Australia by boat and not a jet.

Despite the harshness of mandatory detention, it has never in its 20 years as a policy worked as a deterrent to people seeking asylum because when your life is at stake, you run until you feel safe.

Throughout nine months of hearings and submissions, the Joint Select Committee into Australia's Immigration Detention Network heard from experts on why time limits are needed. While estimates vary over the length — from 30 days as the Greens and Refugee Council recommend to 90 days recommended by the select committee — all agree asylum seekers need to know when they will be released.

All can be living in the community while their claims for protection are assessed, after they have passed initial health and security checks. ASIO has repeatedly said it can conduct these security checks in a matter of days.

The federal government could immediately improve the mental health and well-being of asylum seekers, especially children and families, by putting time limits on their detention.

Time limits, followed by community assessment, is 90 per cent cheaper and 100 per cent fairer than maintaining the status quo.